From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 01 11:55:10 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 May 2002 18:55:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 99900 invoked from network); 1 May 2002 18:55:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 May 2002 18:55:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 May 2002 18:55:09 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.191.65c92d9 (2615)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:55:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <191.65c92d9.2a01940a@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:55:06 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_191.65c92d9.2a01940a_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10500
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_191.65c92d9.2a01940a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5/1/2002 9:05:48 AM Central Daylight Time, 
phma@webjockey.net writes:


> I am unclear just what "beyond calculation" means here. Not
> > apparently, "incalculable," since even my pocket calculator gives values
> > for both of these -- approximations, of course, but that suggests that 
> real
> > values are available (though infinitely long, I suppose). Somehow
> > inadmissible, like division by 0? But again ... . Such that the
> > distinction between fractions and not does not apply? Does any of this 
> say
> > that the presented proof is not a proof?
> 
> I meant "transcendental". What's the right word?
> 
> I don't know the proof; I just saw it stated on Wikipedia. Finding out that 
> 
> the number is irrational does not invalidate the proof.
> 

Thanks; I really was unclear about the point. As for the right word, since I 
forget the difference between irrational and transcendantal, I was happy with 
{nalfrinu} till now. Now, having three not obviously equivalent definitions 
of "transcendental" (just in mathematics), I am even less sure. I suppose 
what fits here it the old infinite non-repeating decimal expansion -- which 
gives a horrible definition-type lujvo (though not as bad as "neither root 
nor quotient of rationals" or "not definable by an finite number of 
rationally coefficiented equations") Time for a good metaphor, which "beyond 
computing" just may be, though it clearly sets off alarms in many people's 
belief webs.

jay.kominek
<For what its worth, a transcendental function is one which cannot be
expressed in algebraic terms.>
But this is about transcendental numbers, which, though presumably related, 
are not quite the same thing: the algebra seems OK here -- unless rational 
coefficients are required to call it algebra. We don't, of course, have a 
word for algebra either (nor hardly any other branch of mathematics -- or 
anything else).

greg:
<> .i ru'a lo'i namcu poi se skicu do fo zo kajbancu du lo'i namcu poi
na'eka'e
> pixra zbasu .i xu go'i .i .e'u ri selcme zo nalpirzbana'u>

I worry about {pixra zbasu} here, but I suppose the point is "can be 
pictured" somehow or other. That doesn't seem quite the point, although it 
is a bit hard to picture some of them, while others work pretty easily: the 
root-twoth power of root-two doesn't do a thing for me, but pi (surely 
transcendental if anything is) is just how much you have to stretch the 
diameter of a circle to wrap it around. But maybe it is a less distracting 
metaphor (trimmed down a bit).



--part1_191.65c92d9.2a01940a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 5/1/2002 9:05:48 AM Central Daylight Time, phma@webjockey.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I am unclear just what "beyond calculation" means here.&nbsp; Not<BR>
&gt; apparently, "incalculable," since even my pocket calculator gives values<BR>
&gt; for both of these -- approximations, of course, but that suggests that real<BR>
&gt; values are available (though infinitely long, I suppose).&nbsp; Somehow<BR>
&gt; inadmissible, like division by 0?&nbsp; But again ... .&nbsp; Such that the<BR>
&gt; distinction between fractions and not does not apply?&nbsp; Does any of this say<BR>
&gt; that the presented proof is not a proof?<BR>
<BR>
I meant "transcendental". What's the right word?<BR>
<BR>
I don't know the proof; I just saw it stated on Wikipedia. Finding out that <BR>
the number is irrational does not invalidate the proof.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Thanks; I really was unclear about the point.&nbsp; As for the right word, since I forget the difference between irrational and transcendantal, I was happy with {nalfrinu} till now.&nbsp; Now, having three not obviously equivalent definitions of "transcendental" (just in mathematics), I am even less sure.&nbsp; I suppose what fits here it the old infinite non-repeating decimal expansion&nbsp; -- which gives a horrible definition-type lujvo (though not as bad as "neither root nor quotient of rationals" or "not definable by an finite number of rationally coefficiented equations")&nbsp; Time for a good metaphor, which "beyond computing" just may be, though it clearly sets off alarms in many people's belief webs.<BR>
<BR>
jay.kominek<BR>
&lt;For what its worth, a transcendental function is one which cannot be<BR>
expressed in algebraic terms.&gt;<BR>
But this is about transcendental numbers, which, though presumably related, are not quite the same thing: the algebra seems OK here -- unless rational coefficients are required to call it algebra.&nbsp; We don't, of course, have a word for algebra either (nor hardly any other branch of mathematics -- or anything else).<BR>
<BR>
greg:<BR>
&lt;&gt; .i ru'a lo'i namcu poi se skicu do fo zo kajbancu du lo'i namcu poi<BR>
na'eka'e<BR>
&gt; pixra zbasu .i xu go'i .i .e'u ri selcme zo nalpirzbana'u&gt;<BR>
<BR>
I worry about {pixra zbasu} here, but I suppose the point is "can be pictured" somehow or other.&nbsp; That doesn't seem quite the point, although it is a bit hard to picture some of them, while others work pretty easily: the root-twoth power of root-two doesn't do a thing for me, but pi (surely transcendental if anything is) is just how much you have to stretch the diameter of a circle to wrap it around.&nbsp; But maybe it is a less distracting metaphor (trimmed down a bit).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_191.65c92d9.2a01940a_boundary--

